amir urson ואשתו חכים נגד חברת AALL-TECH Transmissions בריצ'מונד קנדה

אחרי הפסדים של סכומי כסף גדולים בהליכים משפטיים בישראל, עוברים בימים אלה על בני הזוג אורסון, ימים של קורת רוח בעקבות זכייה בתביעה קטנה.

בני הזוג אמיר אורסון ו קרן אורסון (לשעבר קרן חכים), זכו בתביעה בתביעה קטנה שהגישו נגד חברת AALL-Tech Transmissions  בריצ'מונד קנדה, חברה המתעסקת בגירים לרכב. המדובר בתביעה בשל עיכוב רכבם שהגיע לחברה לטיפול בשל בעייה בגיר. לטענת הזוג אורסון רכבם נלקח "כבן ערובה" ע"י החברה עד שישלמו סכום כסף לחברה שלטענתם לא היה מוצדק. בעקבות זאת הגישו הזוג אורסון תביעה לבית המשפט וזכו בסך של כ  2400$.

כזכור הזוג אורסון עזב אשתקד את ישראל לאחר שהפסיד בהליכים משפטיים רבים אותם ניהל מול גופים שונים כ 800,000 ש"ח (כ 200,000$).

מספר תיק 24119 בבית המשפט לתביעות קטנות בריצ'מונד

לכתבה מתוך האתר RICHMONDREVIEW:

Couple wins court battle after minivan held hostage | By Martin van den Hemel - Richmond Review

Published: March 23, 2012 2:00 PM
Updated: March 28, 2012 2:25 PM

A local couple has won a court battle against Richmond’s All-Tech Transmissions after the company held their minivan hostage following a “free inspection” that ended with the transmission removed, and a bill the couple claims continued to grow.

Amir Urson and his wife Hakkim filed the action in Richmond provincial court after they brought their 2003 Ford Windstar minivan in because of transmission trouble.

After bringing the family vehicle in to a Ford dealership, and receiving three repair options ranging from $4,600 for a new transmission to $1,925 for a used transmission, they turned to All-Tech for a second opinion.

“All of these quotes were higher than the claimant and his wife thought they could afford,” the court ruling said.

The Richmond couple then contacted Rob Litke, manager at All-Tech.

Amir Urson testified that Litke told them that a dealer’s price would always be higher than the defendant’s price because repairing transmissions was his core business.

“Mr. Litke convinced the claimant to bring his vehicle in to the defendant’s shop and the defendant would do a free inspection and provide them with a repair quote,” adjudicator Marina Pratchett wrote.

After bringing in their vehicle, the couple neither asked for, or were handed, a written work authorization.

Litke then contacted the couple and told them that a diagnostic test showed the problems with the vehicle, and that he would have to take a closer look in order to give a repair quote, and that this further examination would have to be charged for. The couple agreed, and claims they were told it would take four hours of work, and were quoted $80 per hour. Litke claims he quoted them the hourly rate of $108.88.

The couple was then told the transmission would cost $3,000 to repair, an amount higher than the lowest quote received from the dealership, so they decided not to have the repair done by All-Tech.

They then arranged to pick up their vehicle on Sept. 20, 2011, prepared to pay $320 plus taxes.

“However, she stated that when she arrived, the defendant refused to release the vehicle telling her she would now have to pay $600,” Pratchett wrote. “Ms. Hakkim said that she was shocked at this increase, but having three children she needed the vehicle urgently and agreed to pay it at which point according to Ms. Hakkim, Mr. Litke then advised that the amount would be higher, now $1,000 or more but was not definitive and he would not allow her or the towing company to remove the vehicle and would not allow Ms. Hakkim to remove any personal effects from the vehicle. Her personal effects included car seats for her infant children which Mr. Litke was refusing to relinquish.”

Litke testified that the vehicle couldn’t be towed because the wheels had been removed, though Hakkim claimed that wasn’t true as when she went into the vehicle, it had wheels on it.

“Mr. Litke testified that there was work to be done to put the vehicle back together, even without installing the transmission and he wanted an authorization for that work and then to be paid for that work before he would release the vehicle.”

Hakkim Urson claimed that Litke was threatening to her, so she went to the Richmond RCMP detachment, and was accompanied upon her return by an RCMP officer who required Litke to allow her to take possession of her personal effects as well as the licence plate.

“The defendant continued to stand behind its position that it was entitled to maintain possession of the vehicle and its refusal to release it. The vehicle has never been returned to the claimant,” Pratchett wrote.

Pratchett noted that at no time did Litke present the Ursons with an account for services rendered, or any accounting and verification of the time it spent on the work, or the cost to reassemble the transmission.

Pratchett ruled that Litke was not enthttp://www.richmondreview.com/business/144709415.html?mobile=trueitled to assert a repairer’s lien on the vehicle or to maintain possession of it.

“The defendant had failed to provide an invoice for payment to the claimant, based on time spent. Further it was not entitled to charge for re-assembly,” Pratchett ruled. “The defendant knew that if the repair estimate was higher than they could afford, the claimant would not be authorizing the work to be done.”

The court ordered All-Tech to pay the couple $2,275, as well as court-ordered interest, and costs of $176.

“The conduct of the defendant and the failure or refusal to release the vehicle in the face of the claimant’s willingness to pay constituted a wrongful conversion of the vehicle by the defendant,” Pratchett wrote.

קישור לכתבה:

http://www.richmondreview.com/business/144709415.html?mobile=true

תוויות: אמיר אורסון, קרן אורסון, קנדה, תביעה משפטית, 24119, תביעה קטנה, ריצ'מונד, All-Tech Transmissions, Martin van den Hemel,  richmondreview, Rob Litke, Ford Windstar minivan, richmond, small claim, canada, israel, amir urson, keren urson, keren hakkim urson